I don't understand the need for people to constantly whine that Apple doesn't create this or that (insert cheap hardware/software combo here) in X market. Nothing you say here will affect them in any way. I'm sure they've done all sorts of feasibility studies and if they could do so and make a good profit with a quality product, they would have done it by now.

Apple is making an incredible profit, with a strong upward trend, even during a recession. You don't fix what isn't broken.

1) Not get ANY money whatsoever from those looking for OS X on a budget?
2) Get a bit of extra money from those that buy OS X and install it themselves on a netbook?
3) Do it the Apple way, piss off a small subset of the tinkerer base, and not get any money whatsoever from it?

1) That's fine for Apple, they don't care about that market demographic, it's not profitable.
2) $30 for OS X doesn't cover the potential support calls (where as the hardware markup does).
3) See answer 1.

I would rather have a deeper penetration of OSX used by larger numbers of the public which would increase market share and spur on sales of the more expensive machines as well once the OS is ingrained in the public's consciousness- especially young students. Alas it's like 2 years too late.

Apple doesn't have any interest in OS X becoming the main stream, majority operating system.

No offence Sam, but this is a pretty horrible article IMO.
I mean you correctly state this is a "claim" instead of a fact, but you lead off with a quote by someone stating it as fact. Then later on you say:

Quote:

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

... The news is another example of Apple fending off systems with unauthorized installs of Mac OS X. ..

As if *that* is already established as fact. (it isn't)

Also, none of this even attempts to get at the problem of intent. Even if the basic facts are true in regards the latest version not running on the Atom, it's a huge leap of logic to imply that this is intentional. It could easily be that the code was just optimised for the hardware they *do* sell and that as a result of that it doesn't run on the Atom. We shouldn't ascribe motivations we don't know about to things and people we have no information on.

Further, this quote you include from the source:

Quote:

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

... (the report said). "Mac OS X runs absolutely flawlessly on much of the PC Netbook hardware, once it's configured you wouldn"t know youre not on a Mac.."

is just total BS. All it does is ramp up the anger and give that person a justification for his next lines where he speculates that it's all a plot or something. The fact that this person is using the superlative statement is a good indicator they are just making crap up.

IMO this story is a wild rumour but it somehow comes across like a factual news article. I know you guys have to run the rumours but this comes across like click bait to me.

Here, in Spain, is not a copyright issue. You're not infringing Apple copyright installing OS X in a non Apple computer, you're only allegedly breaking an article of the EULA. An article that can be illegal according to Spanish consumer law.

Well, all the more reason that Apple will have to increasingly restrict the use of OS X through more restrictive means.

We have to consider that it is Apple's choice to subsidize the price of OS X. If Gillette subsidizes the price of their shaver with the increased cost of the blades (which they do) would it be "theft" for someone to purchase a shaver from Gillette and choose a 3rd-party supplier for the blades? No, it would not. If Gillette subsidized the shaver to the point at which it seriously compromised their profits, that would simply be a bad business decision.

Imagine the reverse situation where Apple sells an expensive shaver and subsidizes the price of the blades. Apple, in fact, has the cheapest blades on the market. So if I were to, say, mold a plastic shaver with the ergonomics I like/need, and which happens to fit Apple's blades, would it be theft for me to buy said blades? No, it would not. Just as Gillette would be stupid to subsidize their shaver to the point of seriously compromising their business, so, too, would Apple.

The other bit, however, is that Apple has an EULA which says that if you buy and use their blades, said blades must be used with Apple's expensive shaver.

Would it now be theft of me to mold my own shaver and buy Apple's blades? The action I am performing is identical to what I was doing before: buying the subsidized blades to use with a shaver I molded myself. The difference in the second situation is breaching a contract.

But... Does Apple really have the legal right to stop me from using their blade, for which I paid the sticker price?

Or... is it, perhaps, Apple who is out of bounds for having such an EULA?

-----------------

As a Hackintosh builder/user, I respect Apple's right to sell their software, and I buy it at the price they ask, but I reject their EULA as a violation of my rights as a consumer. Companies should not be able to control the use of their products past the point of sale. Therefore, disabling Atom support is well within their rights, but repatching OS X to recognize and operate with the Atom motherboard I installed in my late G4 Cube should be well within my rights.

I would rather Apple charge "full price" for OS X than impose unethical restrictions past the point of sale.

Well, the EULA is an extension of the rights you have to Apple's copyright materials (very little, by default.) They permit you to use their copyright materials on hardware that they have designed, manufactured, and sold to you, and, err, that's it.

Here I think is a gray area in where Copyright would provide protection to the proprietary parts of OS X. Using and hence running OS X would be a "method of operation" which is not covered by U.S. Copyright law:

So while Copyright would protect changes to and redistribution of proprietary OS X code, it would not cover Apple's requirement that it is only allowed to be operated on Apple-branded hardware. This is why Apple needs a separate EULA contract to provide additional protections that Copyright law doesn't cover merely by publishing software.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrg_uk

Start trying to do it for profit, as Psystar are attempting to do, and you should expect to be hit hard.

Totally agree. You can use a copyrighted work in any way you want personally and it is covered by the Fair Use laws. Start using it or selling it in a commercial manner and you are in violation.

... We don't know what proportion of hackintosh users actually bought OS X for their computers. Let's not automatically assume Apple is giving up a big chunk of OS sales on this one. ...

I think the whole article is a bit uh, speculative to say the least but this is a very important point.

I've seen Mac OS-x installed on a few hackintoshes and a lot of people where I work have put it on various netbooks of one kind or another. Not once have I seen anyone buy OS-X to put on a netbook.

Let's face it, one isn't even sure if it's going to work and when you do it, it's more like a technical challenge than anything else. I'm not sure there is a "segment of the market" that's using OS-X on hacked netbooks.

I find it very very hard to believe that some average Joe or Jane is going to go out and buy a netbook, go over to the Apple store and buy Snow Leopard, try to install it, and then get pissed off when it doesn't work. This is a fantasy IMO.

I would strongly disagree. Tinkerers, as you call them, are generally regarded as weirdos by their families and neighbors. They usually have ultra-inflated egos, tend to turn off people rather than influence them, and are true bores. The more they tell you how tech savvy they are the more you know they aren't. So whatever they recommend is considered to be too complicated to use by the average Joe. The old Saturday Night Live "Your Company's Computer Guy" skit about sums them up.

1) Not get ANY money whatsoever from those looking for OS X on a budget?
2) Get a bit of extra money from those that buy OS X and install it themselves on a netbook?
3) Do it the Apple way, piss off a small subset of the tinkerer base, and not get any money whatsoever from it?

I assume you think Apple's answer is #3 and that the correct answer should be #2. But if you've followed Apple for any length of time, you know that the real answer is #1.

Apple has always worked to make Mac an "experience" brand. They don't make "budget" hardware and only rarely, if ever, have they made pushes for market share. And they certainly aren't going to chase after something like netbooks if they view them as a passing fad and they have something better in mind. Why would they waste resources designing a netbook that would ultimately compete with the rumored tablet? Why would they want a tiny profit now when they could get a much larger profit later for a tablet?

Which won't work. Anytime Apple attempts something like this someone on the net hacks it in less then 24 hours. If anything its encouragement for people to try and get around it.

People aren't doing this to try and make money they are doing it to see if they can.

Kind of like trying to block the Pre from syncing with iTunes. Apple blocks it and Pre owners fine a way around the block.

Obviously, it's a trade off between the cost of preventing piracy and the cost of not preventing it. Even with the iPhone, it's not really worth a full scale engineering effort to make it practically impossible to hack. On the other hand, were they to perceive hackintoshing as resulting in a significant loss of revenues, they only have to make it so difficult that it's not worth it for (most) people to do it.

Then again, they may not always continue to use Intel CPUs, which would pretty much eliminate the hackintosh community in short order.

...The material harm is that the use r is enjoying the benefits of Mac OS X while Apple has lost the revenue from the required hardware purchase...

Apple would have to provide evidence that the user would of bought Apple hardware to have a material loss. There would be no legal or practical way to prove that fact. In fact, the user buying non-Apple hardware to run OS X on is in direct contradiction to that claim. So in the end, at most the user in violation of a non-enforceable clause in a EULA that violates that user's Fair Use rights for personal use of a copyrighted work.

Does anyone even understand this question, let alone the grammar used to ask it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gwydion

Sorry, I'm not an English speaker, I've never learned English in a formal way, only through reading a lot of books, surfing Internet and watching movies and series. So my grammar skills are weak.

I thank you your polite observation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sequitur

AI members should show where they live or what their native language is. That would forestall statements like the above. Please let us know where you're coming from. When registering, there is a way to show this. AppleInsider, why not make this a requirement.

It shouldn't matter. The internet allows worldwide observation, assume horrible english is a non-native speaker. Being rude doesn't get anyone anywhere. I'm from NY, I see rude everyday and it's pointless.
What hittrj meant to ask was "Could you clarify your question, please?" Same thing, but garners a completely different response. Not that tough.

As a Hackintosh builder/user, I respect Apple's right to sell their software, and I buy it at the price they ask, but I reject their EULA as a violation of my rights as a consumer.

That's awfully convenient. It's like saying, "I don't like their rules, so I'll ignore them and make up my own". You have the opinion that Apple's SL EULA violates your right as a consumer and to that your are entitled. But despite your protestations, Apple's EULA still stands as valid and legal (until and if it's proven otherwise) and you are still violating it (even with the $30 upgrade or $169 box).

I don't understand the need for people to constantly whine that Apple doesn't create this or that (insert cheap hardware/software combo here) in X market. Nothing you say here will affect them in any way. I'm sure they've done all sorts of feasibility studies and if they could do so and make a good profit with a quality product, they would have done it by now.

Apple is making an incredible profit, with a strong upward trend, even during a recession. You don't fix what isn't broken.

You're exactly right. Moreover, it is far better to compete at a higher price level and have the option of going down in prices, rather than hope for the reverse. Once you're in the $300 market with your product, it's difficult to crawl back into the $1000+ segment.

I feel very badly for the PC-makers who've got into this pricing hole. Oblivion is what's staring at them in the next few years, at the rate their margins are going.

Tim Cook is gay, believes in climate change, and cares deeply about racial equality. Deal with it (and please spare us if you can't).

Well, all the more reason that Apple will have to increasingly restrict the use of OS X through more restrictive means.

Hackintosh users have a cavalier atttiude about it because they know they can get away with it, and when enough of them do for long enough, they've convinced themselves over time that their *particular* form of infringement is legitimate. Although one wonders what else they're doing along the same lines.

They're breaking software license agreements. It's just that simple. Software license agreements are fundamental to the sale, purchase, and use of software. Simply because the legal consquences can't be meted out all the time and in every case does not make them any less valid, and in fact companies are within their rights to enforce them any time they please. In this case, Apple isn't even bringing any legal consequences to bear on hackintosh users! Just making it a bit harder for them. And they respond by crying foul??

Apple is doing the right thing by addressing this issue now before it gets out of hand. I prefer the current model where I can install my legally purchased of Mac OS on my purchased Apple Mac without the activation hassle.

PS. The reason I referenced MS is because they are the only other commercial OS builders.

How do you know Apple is "actively targeting the hackintosh community"?

The community doesn't even matter, apart from its continued (and unfettered) existence making Apple look hypocritical when going after Psystar.

Not surprising that at some point Apple would in principle send out a clear message to the hackintosh community as well. Apple is not going after them legally, but simply making it a bit harder for them on a particular unsupported platform.

Hackintosh users have a cavalier atttiude about it because they know they can get away with it, and when enough of them do for long enough, they've convinced themselves over time that their *particular* form of infringement is legitimate. ... And they respond by crying foul??

Yeah, 'thieves' was kinda for effect, but you know it's wrong (least you should do). And if everyone behaved as many of you do here, Apple would have to make changes to the way they work.

The Apple that I assume you love (by the fact that you are going to the trouble of installing it on a substandard pile of crap), would not exist in it's present form, the model would become more like microsoft's and suck for the same reasons.

On an individual basis I dont care what you get up to, im not exactly completely innocent myself. But my point is, for the future of the platform, I would prefer Appleinsider did not put their seal of approval on this activity.

That's awfully convenient. It's like saying, "I don't like their rules, so I'll ignore them and make up my own". You have the opinion that Apple's SL EULA violates your right as a consumer and to that your are entitled. But despite your protestations, Apple's EULA still stands as valid and legal (until and if it's proven otherwise) and you are still violating it (even with the $30 upgrade or $169 box).

Yet I don't deny violating it, nor deny what I am doing is "legally" wrong. If Apple sues me for breach of EULA, I am guilty, and I admit it. What's your point? That neither makes Apple ethically right or me morally wrong. Legal rights and wrongs do not always equal ethical rights and wrongs.

It's not entitlement, either. I am NOT a big business demonizer. I don't whine and moan and act victimized by corporations. There are just things that are within Apple's rights as a business and things that are not. Controlling the method of use of my copy of the OS should not be one. I bought the license to install OS X. That's all they need to care about.

We have to consider that it is Apple's choice to subsidize the price of OS X. If Gillette subsidizes the price of their shaver with the increased cost of the blades (which they do) would it be "theft" for someone to purchase a shaver from Gillette and choose a 3rd-party supplier for the blades? No, it would not. If Gillette subsidized the shaver to the point at which it seriously compromised their profits, that would simply be a bad business decision.

..

But... Does Apple really have the legal right to stop me from using their blade, for which I paid the sticker price?

Or... is it, perhaps, Apple who is out of bounds for having such an EULA?

-Clive

You totally missed the point because razor blades are not copyrighted material. Software, including OS, are copyrighted materials and therefore the owner of the software (Apple) is given rights to govern how their software is used. The EULA agreement is legal as shown in lawsuits before. However, the challenges are usually to specifics in the EULA.

Totally agree. You can use a copyrighted work in any way you want personally and it is covered by the Fair Use laws. Start using it or selling it in a commercial manner and you are in violation.

That is absolutely incorrect. For example, if you have a party with 1,000 guests and show a copy of the DVD you purchased at Best Buy, that would be a violation of copyright. Use of a copyrighted work for public display is not permitted. Admittedly, it's not likely to be prosecuted, but that doesn't change the legality.

You can't say "anything is legal unless prohibited." Rather, any use of copyrighted material is prohibited unless authorized either by license or Fair Use rules.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trboyden

Apple would need to show material harm from such a contractual violation and if the user has paid for the license, that will be difficult to claim on the part of Apple because they have profited from the sale of the license. Such a case would most likely be settled with the user giving up their right of use of OS X in return for a refund of the cost of the license.

Again, you're wrong. Apple doesn't need to show harm to enforce its copyrights. All they need to do is show that the copyrights have been infringed and that is sufficient to get an injunction against the infringer. They WOULD have to show damages in order to collect damages, but that's pretty obvious - and there's no indication that they want to do that, anyway.

You're also wrong that they couldn't show damages simply because the infringer paid $30. First, the $30 price is clearly labeled as an upgrade. The courts have consistently upheld the ability of software vendors to sell upgrades at lower price and enforce that. So, even if you ignore the EULA issue, the purchaser of a $30 SL package and using it on non-Apple equipment is violating Apple's rights. There is also harm - the appearance of crippled systems running OS X could confuse some consumers and make them think that Apple makes crappy systems.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

You totally missed the point because razor blades are not copyrighted material. Software, including OS, are copyrighted materials and therefore the owner of the software (Apple) is given rights to govern how their software is used. The EULA agreement is legal as shown in lawsuits before. However, the challenges are usually to specifics in the EULA.

Umm, no. Why try to take his post out of context when he was simply making an analogy on the business case being used by Gillette vs. Apple? His argument had nothing to do with the Copyright issue.

Apparently we need to post this again - how software is used or operated (same thing) is not a protection of Copyright:

Quote:

What does copyright protect?
Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed.

Yes, and dozens of PC manufacturers have taken over offering amazing replacements. The shame with Mac is that you have no choice. You cannot buy a full Mac that is 350 g, yet you can buy a full PC Windows that is 350 g. THAT IS THE POINT.

Yet I don't deny violating it, nor deny what I am doing is "legally" wrong. If Apple sues me for breach of EULA, I am guilty, and I admit it. What's your point? That neither makes Apple ethically right or me morally wrong. Legal rights and wrongs do not always equal ethical rights and wrongs.

It's not entitlement, either. I am NOT a big business demonizer. I don't whine and moan and act victimized by corporations. There are just things that are within Apple's rights as a business and things that are not. Controlling the method of use of my copy of the OS should not be one. I bought the license to install OS X. That's all they need to care about.

-Clive

I hate to say it, but entitlement is precisely what it sounds like. You feel that you should be allowed to use Apple's OS independent of buying an Apple computer simply because you've deemed it's EULA unethical and it's the OS you've chosen to use. No offense, but it's not really up to you to determine what's within Apple's rights as a business and what isn't. What is within your right as a consumer is to buy something else if you don't agree with what the corporation in question does or stands for. But no amount of debate will change either of our minds one way or the other so we'll have to agree to disagree.